header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 March 2021 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7924 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

An Uber assessment

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
42002
Uber drivers may now be entitled to the protection of the working time & national minimum wage legislation, but not all gig economy workers will be able to establish claims for worker status, says Charles Pigott
  • The Supreme Court has affirmed the employment tribunal’s decision that a group of Uber drivers had the status of non-employee workers.
  • In doing so it has signalled a new approach to assessing employment status.

A small group of London-based Uber drivers started proceedings in the employment tribunal in 2015. Two of them, Mr Aslam and Mr Farrer, were selected as test claimants for a preliminary ruling. This was to establish whether they had worker status for the purposes of claims for the national minimum wage and for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833.

The two main respondents were Uber BV, a Dutch company which owns the rights to the Uber app, and Uber London Limited, its UK subsidiary, which holds the licence to operate private hire vehicles in London. The name ‘Uber’

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll